Anthony testified that he would have no trouble handling a reasonable production quota on an assembly line provided "it wasn't too fast-paced." If a problem arose with a co-worker, Mr. Anthony indicated he would handle it in a reasonable way:
Q: Suppose a co-worker became argumentative over the work that you and he were doing, what would be your reaction to that situation with a person that you were working with?
A: Probably to try to ignore it -- ignore him or her.
Q: Would you confront that person directly and point out your position?
A: I don't think so.
Q: Would you be apt to leave the place of conflict --
A: Yes, sir, that's probably what I would do.
Despite the character of his responses above, on appeal Mr. Anthony maintains that there is no substantial evidence to support the Secretary's finding that he can perform alternative work. He asserts that the vocational expert's testimony is contrary to that finding and maintains that he is incapable of performing the jobs identified by the vocational expert. Mr. Anthony bases his conclusion on the potential for stress in these positions, and the possibility that adequate supervision would not be immediately available.
This case was remanded for taking of evidence in accordance with Social Security Ruling 85-15. The Ruling classifies as disabled anyone who can not meet the basic mental demands of unskilled work, including the ability on a sustained basis to understand, carry out, and remember simple instructions, to respond appropriately to supervision, co-workers, and usual work situations, and to deal with changes in a routine work setting.
Because we find that substantial evidence on the present record supports a finding by the Secretary that Mr. Anthony is not disabled within the meaning of the Act, we affirm the denial of benefits. An appropriate order will be filed.
ORDER OF COURT
NOW, this 6th day of October, 1992,
After careful consideration, and a review of the administrative record, the opinion of the Administrative Judge, the briefs filed by the parties, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff is DENIED.
Judgment is entered in favor of the defendant, and against the plaintiff.
Glenn E. Mencer
United States District Judge
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.